If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Awful movie. It made no sense at all. Although the first half of the movie seemed pretty good and interesting the second half was just terrible and reminded me of Sci-fi. At first the film was appealing and the plot was great because it has to do with a mother who has lost her child and can't get over it. Furthermore her psychotherapist and her husband try to convince her that she never had a child and she made up the whole story. Afterwards she runs away for no specific reason and the film gets boring and confusing. Lots of scenes make no sense and she runs all the time but we don't really know who chases her. Finally she finds out what is going on and the film finishes with her being with her child and no further explanation was ever given to the viewer. I believe that the movie was completely destroyed due to the second half of the movie and the scenes that made no sense at all. The end is so weird that I was annoyed.

Julianne Moore is the mother of a nine-year-old boy, estranged from her Wall Street husband. The son is tenderly put on board a flight that disappears and is forgotten. Moore is frantic, along the lines of, "Where is my CHILD?" Seeking succor from her husband, she finds that he claims they never had any children. A shrink, Gary Sinese, tells her that such delusions are common and so forth. As is usual in these sorts of films, nobody believes her. It doesn't help that when she tries to explain, her speech turns to gibberish.Finally, she roots out a man, Christopher Kovaleski, whose daughter was a friend of Moore and her son. Kovalevski claims he never had a son but when he speaks her name the memories come flooding back. So what the hell is going on? Well, what's going on is that some supernatural force -- always referred to as "they" or "them" -- is conducting an experiment from outer space in an attempt to measure the strength of the mother-child bond. They've got the National Security Agency on their side, somehow; it's never explained how. This -- this -- force can make troublesome people disappear by whisking them up into the sky.Finally an agent from outer space -- an expressionless nonentity -- explains the deal to Moore in an abandoned warehouse. She's the last hold-out, he tells her, and he wants her to forget about her son "otherwise the experiment will fail." Pardon me while I put on my behavioral scientist's research hat. No, the experiment won't fail. It CAN'T fail. If the experiment was designed to measure the strength of the mother-child bond, that's precisely what it's doing. It's telling the investigator that everybody else has forgotten his or her child except for one or two irregular cases, Moore and Kovalevksi. If there are a hundred cases in which the erasure of memory worked and only two in which it didn't, well, those are the results. For most practical purposes, the bond is soluble.The first part of the film is interesting, shot in the most spectral parts of Brooklyn, which is in pretty bad shape to begin with. We see two people running hither and yon through dark alleyways and cowering in fields under the Williamsburg Bridge. Then, as the experiment is gradually revealed, the whole thing falls apart and become a shabby imitation of "The X Files" laced with expensive CGIs.The actors do a fine job. Moore is under-appreciated. She has a blocky, freckled beauty that doesn't fit the Hollywood stereotype but she's a splendid actress. Kovalevski's role is rather more constricting, but Alfre Woodard as a helpful police detective is compelling without seeming to reach for it.The director, Joseph Ruben, can't be held responsible for the weaknesses either. He doesn't show off with the camera and the editing is classical. Here and there, amid the wreckage, he stages a scene that's both functional and poetic."The X Files" had a respectable and solid following from 1993 to 2002. A reasonable guess is that the series served as the inspiration for this movie. Moore's character is named "Telly," two phonemes away from "Scully."

First, if it's not already too late, please avoid the trailers, and I recommend watching the extended version with the alternate version. Why? One of the best surprises is spoiled in the trailer (lesser ones too) and the alternate ending is arguably better, definitely less simple and Hollywood-like despite the same final result. So, this was a very good thriller with an excellent concept I don't remember seeing done anywhere before in TV or film. What if your kid died in an accident but months later you were told by everyone he never existed? I appreciated how the subject was explored and how gradually that revelation and others were made. Is our mother delusional or is there something else going on? Of course, an option is more likely than the other, but the journey was suspenseful. At several moments in the film, there was an escalation of events that raised the stakes and made things more interesting and disturbing.However, this thriller succeeds in part because it's grounded emotionally by Julianne Moore's intense performance. I felt for her ordeal and to be that believable, it's obvious she really is a mother who loves children. Of course, most mothers wouldn't be such great actresses. ;-) The other performances were decent and didn't detract. The directing also helped matters as the veteran Joseph Ruben obviously knows this genre. I appreciated the overhead shots, shots through obstacles and windows implying that our heroine might be observed. It wasn't the flashiest shots but they were well done. Of particular note to me were the accident and the captures, rather effective and shocking. I also liked how the color schemes differed from warm golden in flashbacks to cold bluish in the present. So, very neat "Twilight Zone" concept aptly executed with a great female lead. Your appreciation might depend on how open-minded you are, but for a critical cynic like me, I wasn't taken out by stupid behavior or illogical crap.Rating: 7.5 out of 10 (very good)

I love the third and final version of this video. The original Forgotten video was made before 1975. The second version of Forgotten was released in 2004. And, the third Forgotten was released in 2014.This movie was released in the same fashion as C is for Cycle by Ernesto Diaz Espinoza. The original C is for Cycle was made before 1975, a second version of C is for Cycle was released in 2012 and the final version of C is for Cycle was released in 2014.C is for Cycle from the ABC's of death combined with Forgotten is about a third person with two brothers fearing his death. The friends of the third brother and the second brother all worked tirelessly together to create an inspiring series of films, hoping to impress their superior and almighty Creator. Part of the mystery was to dupe one of the brothers into believing they were a different person while heavily sedated. I hope it worked. Did it?